Great stuff. You have it backwards. I read what you wrote, asked some questions to clarify and explicitly acknowledged some of the things you lectured me about (the main issue being a difference of definitions, and then going beyond that to address the substance as well, since I also think you and The Guardian are wrong on the substance whatever definitions you choose to use). We have some differences in terms of the way we see it, which generally is fine, but your message managed to miss literally about 90% of what I said.

But sure, if you just wanted to drop a lecture-bomb and flee, mission accomplished. Have a good day.

Great stuff. I’ll construct my reply in the form of some questions.

You can’t debate or discuss anything effectively if your approach is to ignore 90% of what the other person says and then reply to something you made up in your head. In fact in your replies to me I’m starting to see a pattern that also explains how you got the intent of the original article so wrong. Reading comprehension is more than just understanding the words, it’s about disentangling your own perception of reality from that of the writer and correctly assessing how their worldview differs from yours, so that you can actually begin to understand their intent, and not just the intent that you read into the words in absentia.

How many times did I attempt to restate back to you what I understood your argument to be (“I get what you’re saying”)? Was my summary of your argument pretty much in agreement with what you were trying to say?

To me, it sounds like we’re saying the same thing with different terminology, as you said. And, I’m acknowledging that it’s an issue of terminology and definitions, and then proceeding from there to address the underlying issue as well. Right? And you’re yelling at me that I’m speaking in bad faith just because I like to use more accurate definitions, and call out someone who is using the formerly-mainstream wait wait I’m getting ahead of myself.

You are the one redefining terms. That’s not actually a bad thing; we do need a mass-scale redefinition of how we define economic success. But you can’t tear-ass away from the mainstream currents of a particular field of study, and then act like everyone else is the weirdo because they’re not speaking the very specific language that you just made up.

How has mainstream economic thought changed since the 1980s? Is it still considered an “economic boom” when inflation is low and unemployment is high? In mainstream economic thought?

Did I address how these terms being defined in the specific way that they are can lead to harmful outcomes, and explicitly why I didn’t use the (formerly-mainstream) definitions for them? Where and how?

(As a hint to help you with answering this question, imagine that someone’s going on Lemmy and describing pro-Palestinian protestors as “pro-Hamas” and describing what Israel is doing in Gaza as “counterterrorism.” Would you proceed to use that mainstream terminology, and then get upset if someone wanted to use some different terminology because it wasn’t mainstream?)

Oh, also, since you’re saying that Reagan produced an economic boom by the traditional metric of unemployment, what was the average unemployment level during the 1980s? How does it compare with the unemployment level coming out of Covid that was considered an economic apocalypse at the time? Higher or lower?

Reagan’s policies did fuel an economic boom (when measured by traditional economic indicators - that’s its own can of worms)

Incorrect. By almost any metric you want to pick other than “did a bunch of assholes on Wall Street get very rich”, it was a disaster. Wages, unemployment, federal budget deficit, domestic manufacturing… IDK, what metrics were you thinking? The Dow Jones? The dollar tanked, so the trade deficit improved, but that was pretty temporary as for a variety of reasons all the manufacturing fled the country like it was last call. Unless by “traditional,” you mean the ones like GDP or stock prices that are largely just illusory maybe. What metrics do you mean that are accurate when you say it fueled an economic boom?

Nothing in this article is cheerleading for Trump. This “if we stay the course” angle is entirely in your head.

It says:

There are precedents. In October 1979, Paul Volcker, newly appointed as chair of the Federal Reserve, drove up interest rates to a remarkable 13% in a bid to tackle inflation, later raising them to 17%. Soon the US was in recession. Millions lost their jobs over the next two years, notably in manufacturing, where soaring interest rates had driven up the value of the dollar, making US exports less affordable on the world market. After a light easing of interest rate hell by the Fed, Volcker applied a second dose of the medicine, driving interest rates up to 19% and forcing the economy back into a double-dip recession. Unemployment peaked at around 10% in late 1982.

But by mid-1983, inflation had come down to 2.5%. For the rest of the 1980s, the US economy boomed. The “Volcker shock” appeared to have worked. Volcker is today a folk hero among central bankers: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis, praised Volcker’s “independence” and willingness to brazen out the political storm.

Trump is not for turning on what is clearly for him a personal crusade. Already, countries such as Vietnam are promising to cut all their tariffs on US goods – a clear and brutal demonstration of the US’s continuing economic power. The administration has claimed 50 other countries have also asked to open negotiations. By the end of the week, expect Trump to be triumphantly announcing more such concessions from economies in the global south. His real target – China – will be a far tougher nut to crack, if it breaks at all.

Perhaps the rolling market chaos will become too much. Perhaps the administration will blink first. There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump.

I get what you’re saying. They may be using a definition of “worked” that is limited to the leaders’ own internal aims (which are horrible), and not cheerleading when they write these things. But I don’t buy it. I highlighted the part where they are explicitly saying that this sort of thing was really good for the US “economy” (even at the expense of everyone else).

Again, I get what you’re saying, that if you define “the economy” as just a handful of bankers and landlords, it makes perfect sense. By almost no other definition does it make sense. So, I say “propaganda” because this type of clever redefinition of words to mean something other than what they mean is one of the most effective methods. You can sort of implicitly cast the situation in a way where economic destruction is “medicine” and the looting of the middle class on behalf of Wall Street is “booming economy” and things like that.

I guess it’s possible that this Guardian writer is just super badly confused when he writes that. He may be unintentionally parroting some propaganda framings, while he’s trying to make an accurate analysis of where Trump’s tariff ideas even come from, and some historical parallels.

But the worst thing we can do is assume that Trump’s plans (or at least, the plans of the people doing their best to steer him in a particular direction) have no chance of succeeding. Presuming victory is a great way to ensure defeat.

It is important to understand that there really is a chance that Trump might succeed in creating a new world economic order. I don’t think he will, because I think Trump’s personal goals are not as well aligned with those of his advisors as the author of this article assumes. But just because I disagree on the odds, doesn’t mean I have to disagree on the possible outcomes, and acknowledging those possible outcomes is really, really important.

I absolutely do not think that Trump will be ineffective at wreaking destruction or creating a new world economic order. Pretty much my only complaint with the article is that it defines it as “success” for somebody, when to me the more likely outcome is failure for everyone: Trump, Trump’s backers, rich people in the US, poor people in the US, and the rest of the world. And, it ascribes some method to the madness (and thus a “clear-eyed” possibility that it will accomplish goals of some sort for somebody) that I think is very undeserved, however much theoretical backing in some vague sense it has.

I mean apparently it defeated you lol. Like I said, I’m trying to help you with your reading comprehension and research abilities apparently.

Also:

You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

I’m fine with many many points of view, including pro-Trump ones if they make sense (one random example from recently being that he seems genuinely surprised and angry that Russia broke the cease-fire instantly). My complaint with this article is not that it’s pro-Trump, it’s that it is horseshit.

There’s also this:

He literally thinks (or thought, at one point, I don’t know if he still does) that the country doing the exporting pays the tariff. He put 50% tariffs on Lethoso. That’s not underestimating, that’s just facts.

Other more coherent people have written about his motivations, the source of his tariff ideas, all kinds of stuff. You can do analysis of any of his ideas and the goals (if any) behind them without agreeing with any of it. But this article’s thesis is more or less “he’s trying to devalue the dollar to set right the balance of trade, and it might work” and that is a bunch of sanewashing and horseshit with some additional fantasies about how well Reagan’s stuff worked out thrown in for good measure.

You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

Lol

You read the place where I said I’ve already addressed it, and failed to notice that part, and only noticed the part where I quickly touched on the TLDR of what I’d already addressed in more detail previously. Is that what happened?

This definitely sounds like a reading comprehension issue. Slow down. Read! It is good for you.

Yeah, see that all makes perfect sense. I’m all for analyzing how things got to be this way and how the whole thing behaves and where this tariff thing even came from.

What I was taking issue with is saying that it “might work” if we just stay the course, just like all Reagan’s policies worked and fueled an economic boom. That, I strongly disagree with for multiple reasons, to the point that I think it is journalistic malpractice.

The Guardian writes pretty much 99% very informative and sensible articles and then every so often one comes that is totally insane, and every one of the insane ones that I’ve seen has either been pro-Trump or pro-Russia. I have no idea what’s going on there but it seemed worth talking about to me.

Okay so clearly the time I spent actually explaining clearly where I was coming from, why I was sort of being a jerk and and what my concern was, and pointing you to the specific messages to read because it was kind of unreasonable to tell you just to go hunting through my profile at unspecified length, was wasted.

Again: If I explain it a few times, and you either can’t or won’t pick it up after that, I don’t feel like just making the attempt repeatedly forever. Sorry if that gives offense.

lol okay fair point let me rephrase

someone whose opinion is that ants are tiny robots sent by the Koreans to spy on us and we all need to step on them all the time

That is more bizarre than what’s in this article but they are based in roughly the same level of factual rigor and connection to reality.

yes, assuming Trump’s goal is to have more manufacturing in the US, tariffs will

Destroy domestic manufacturing by enacting insane tariffs on the raw materials it depends on, without any nontrivial increase in manufacturing to counterbalance the pain, even in the long run.

This type of command economy “might makes right” stuff can fail catastrophically. As recently as the 1990s, there were people starving in North Korea by the hundreds of thousands (at least) because someone decided that enforcing his will was more important than listening to people who even on the most rudimentary level knew what they were doing.

Maybe there would be a big improvement to be had to the quality of the paper and the engagement, if it came with the right framing.

In a box on page 1: “One story in this paper is fake! Can you spot it? Write to (blah) with your guess and your reasons” and then see what people come up with and publish some of the letters with responses. Get people in a more healthy frame of mind for how to interact with the material.

(Bonus points if there is no fake story in most issues)

I did. You ignored it. That’s why I am doing this alternate approach.

I actually specifically addressed the characterization of what I said as “Orange man bad,” by way of a contrasting example with some pro-Trump stuff I would agree with.

If you’re not really able to read and comprehend, or get offended at the suggestion that it might be important that you do so, then I think I don’t care what your opinion is on these economic theories or these world events. It might be filtered through whatever conceptual blinkers are making it so hard for you to comprehend what I am saying here and causing you to default back to just repeating what you wanted to say.

Nope. Want to try again?

I actually listed a few different examples and supporting arguments, some sarcastically and some not.

Sounds good. What was my criticism of applying this particular theoretical framework to what’s going to happen in reality now? Separate from whether the framework is accurate?

I’m not trying to be a dick in asking you this type of question, but I’ve repeated myself a bunch of times on it now. You don’t have to agree with it, I’m just curious what you think my main criticisms are.

lol sure

https://ponder.cat/post/2310045/2616899

https://ponder.cat/post/2310062/2618197

There’s the cheat sheet, my criticism of the theory in the first place, and then my separate criticism of its success level when being placed in Trump’s hands to execute.

So summarize for me: What is my main argument in both fronts?

The point that I am making is that it feels like you’re not bothering to read anything I am writing, and just repeating over and over again that this is a coherent plan by some particular people (which, sure it is) and explaining how the plan works.

I do understand how the currency devaluation plan works. I actually led off quite a while ago by explaining it, more or less the same way you had. I’m wondering if you know what my explanation was, and what my main criticisms were of applying that theory to the current world situation. I feel like you don’t, and this is one of those conversations where you just repeat your side over and over again until the other person gives up and goes away.

So tell me: What are my main criticisms? In your own words? I don’t want to give you a link to the exact comment, I feel like that would take away the opportunity for enrichment by finding them and reading them and going through the exercise of stating what it is that you think they say.

https://ponder.cat/u/PhilipTheBucket

You will have to read down to the second comment to find it. Well, third comment now.

The ‘Bessant-Miran Shock’ is trying to create a weaker dollar (in other words, less import-focused economy) so that their country gets the benefits of manufacturing as well as of currency control.

Let’s try an experiment. What was the wording I used when I explained this concept recently? What was my criticism of connecting this particular economic framework to current world events in the real world?

Your argument is that Trump read their book and is now faithfully applying what they had in mind? That is clearly after-the-fact sanewashing of a bizarre fever dream of a plan that he had.

I’m not really interested in going back and forth about this. You can have your own opinion on it where Trump is reading up on economic theories and trying to enact rational policies based on them because it’ll bring back American manufacturing, if you want to. I won’t stop you.

I have explained elsewhere, look in my profile. In short, it is normalizing Trump’s sharpie-on-the-weather-map idiocy and making it sound like it’s part of a coherent plan that might “work” when it clearly is not. You asked for specific sentences so I quoted some of the examples of when they did that.